301 points! and could have done more

[MrForbes]

Interesting questions. No one has mentioned that Mr. Sanghi also donated more money to pay for the winning alliance team's entry fees for Championships. It would be more valuable to a team to win the finals, than to get the 200 points. It might not have been as much about the money as you think.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

Interesting questions. No one has mentioned that Mr. Sanghi also donated more money to pay for the winning alliance team's entry fees for Championships. It would be more valuable to a team to win the finals, than to get the 200 points. It might not have been as much about the money as you think.

Thats not what is being put across.

[Answer42]

So, this was said earlier, but I didn't see it addressed. Why not just get a foul and raise the opposing alliances score? If you are serious enough to go no defense then why not give the other alliance the points they need "accidentally" when it was clear you had a 100+ point lead on them? that would be what baffles me most about this situation.

[Nirvash]

Originally Posted by Answer42

So, this was said earlier, but I didn't see it addressed. Why not just get a foul and raise the opposing alliances score? If you are serious enough to go no defense then why not give the other alliance the points they need "accidentally" when it was clear you had a 100+ point lead on them? that would be what baffles me most about this situation.

I would assume because it wouldn't be the GP thing to do? Both teams decided to play the game a certain way as a challenge, it would have been cheating that challenge to just foul up 500 points.

And as to people having an issue with this match, nowhere in the rules does it say that you must play with a certain strategy, if anything all the teams did was just Assist each other and have fun.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by seg9585

Let me ask real quick, then: Would this type of match be acceptable if it was the Final match on the Einstein field? How big of a bribe would be required to make it acceptable on Einstein?

Conversely, would the teams have done this in Arizona if only $100 off was offered? Just $50 off? There must be a threshold...

Many teams and almost all spectators (and sponsor reps) only go to 1 regional so this is all they see.

It wasn't the money, it was the challenge! There was no bribe. The whole contest was public, no shady deals. The money was incidental. The interesting thing is that all involved are happy and enjoyed the whole event. Its only been the people that were not there that seem to have difficulty with this. I wonder if teams on Einstein would ever see the other possibilities that exist in this approach of the game, seeing who can outscore the other, money aside.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by Answer42

So, this was said earlier, but I didn't see it addressed. Why not just get a foul and raise the opposing alliances score? If you are serious enough to go no defense then why not give the other alliance the points they need "accidentally" when it was clear you had a 100+ point lead on them? that would be what baffles me most about this situation.

I think the rationale behind not purposefully fouling was that both teams still wanted to try and win the match through a pure offensive standpoint, and get the 200+ points clean. If we're admonishing two alliances agreeing to play a certain way, why aren't we admonishing alliances that use their timeout for the other alliance? Every argument here could be used in an argument against giving a timeout to the other alliance.

[Nathan Rossi]

Originally Posted by Nirvash

I would assume because it wouldn't be the GP thing to do? Both teams decided to play the game a certain way as a challenge, it would have been cheating that challenge to just foul up 500 points.

^ This. It was jokingly brought up before our first match but, it woudn't have been the GP thing to do.

[dodar]

Would you rather watch the National Flag Football Championships or the NFL Super Bowl? Thats the difference you which you are talking about.

I could almost guarantee you 9/10 would pick the SB.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by Answer42

So, this was said earlier, but I didn't see it addressed. Why not just get a foul and raise the opposing alliances score? If you are serious enough to go no defense then why not give the other alliance the points they need "accidentally" when it was clear you had a 100+ point lead on them? that would be what baffles me most about this situation.

It wasn't the money, it was the challenge. Fouls would not be the GP way to get to the goal that Steve Sanghi wanted. He wanted to see us play the game as fast as we could with co-opertition. Getting fouls would not be in the spirit that the challenge was made.

[MrForbes]

I'd rather watch NURC than any kind of football....but they're not holding it this year. Next year...watch out!

[dodar]

Originally Posted by falconmaster

Previous match 1 match in finals with defense 225 to 101
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNwCVSuy1vw
after this both alliances agreed to try to get 200 point plus each to get a bet made by Steve Sanghi, to get 500 dollars off the next years registration. almost made it 301 to 180

Originally Posted by falconmaster

It wasn't the money, it was the challenge! There was no bribe. The whole contest was public, no shady deals. The money was incidental. The interesting thing is that all involved are happy and enjoyed the whole event. Its only been the people that were not there that seem to have difficulty with this. I wonder if teams on Einstein would ever see the other possibilities that exist in this approach of the game, seeing who can outscore the other, money aside.

Something doesnt match here.

[nixiebunny]

As a spectator for the finals (we got knocked out in the quarterfinals), I found the final match to be quite enjoyable. We had just witnessed three hours of robots beating each other up. It was refreshing to watch a game with nothing but pure scoring performance.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by dodar

Would you rather watch the National Flag Football Championships or the NFL Super Bowl? Thats the difference you which you are talking about.

I could almost guarantee you 9/10 would pick the SB.

What is wrong with Flag Football?

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by dodar

Something doesnt match here.

Read as: We tried to match Steve Sanghi's challenge; it wasn't about the money.

As a member of the team from the stands: it really wasn't about the money, we really wanted to beat the challenge.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

Read as: We tried to match Steve Sanghi's challenge; it wasn't about the money.

As a member of the team from the stands: it really wasn't about the money, we really wanted to achieve the challenge.

I understand the point, but he and others have said they only did the challenge to get the $500 for the registration fee.

And what was so wrong as to achieve the challenge set forth by FIRST that it had to be modified by a sponsor?